RoccoGalatioto: Painting and photography are totally different arts. If you must paint, learn how to put paint on a canvass. Photography is a totally different medium. It may look easy but getting superb images is very hard. Photographers should not waste time imitating panting they should use their imagination at capturing the instant and the very graphical images that the medium allows to capture. Although at first photography appears very naturalistic, it can be so, it has the potential to be the most surrealistic. My opinion. If you like an image who cares what or how it's made from. Life is too short. ENJOY
There is a more fundamental difference between painting and photography; everyone can take photos. If this is obvious, I apologize. If painting offered auto focus, auto exposure and instant gratification, it would be interesting to see if people still chose photography.
It looks like a great little camera but as a proud Olympus owner, I wish they would make the "OLYMPUS" on the strap a little larger.
Tape5: The total number of comments exceeding 1000?
Adobe, over 1000 comments? Disrespect.
kecajkerugo: from Mike's blog.... and whilst the D600 still holds a bit of an advantage in image quality, it’s not as much as you might think; less in practical application; far more of the difference will come down to shot discipline and how the images are processed. And that’s assuming pixels are going to be peeped: they’re close enough that even at 100% it takes a reasonably trained eye to spot the difference. Everybody will see the composition first, of course. Even if we’d had DX cameras in the mix, the results would be even closer still – if not an even match..... Most of the difference is due to the optics. Yet despite its sensor, the D600 lags behind in every other specification; it’s not until you hit the full-fat D4 that you can match frame rates or environmental sealing. Bottom line: there is simply nothing quite like the E-M1 at the moment – a very compact professional system camera.
Maybe it's because Pentax and Nikon have always been camera companies.
Adrian Van: For more EM1 photos/reviews: Check out RobinWong.blogspot for photos of C-AF tracking of skate boarders and many photos from the new EM1 for sport and moving people/vehicles and also macro photos in his first 2 articles on EM1. It shows the large buffer around 41 photos in Raw S-AF and 50 Raw photos in C-AF high speed mode, and you can download images for review.
CAF looks like it works very well in his tests. Robin now an employee of Olympus only recently (a few blog posts ago) now has even faster access to Olympus gear it seems for review. Worth checking out and a great read.
Great job, finally getting that job at Olympus, you certainly do deserve it Robin!!
I'm sure it's a wonderful camera but I wouldn't be too quick to congratulate somebody for getting a job with Olympus.
Good for private detectives, I guess. If this was from Nikon it would be one more example of how far they and Sony stay ahead of the competition. But since it's from Canon, it's a fail dude.
All this pro stuff. The regular cards are already Extreme Pro, right? So these should be Ultra, Ultra, Extreme Super Pro.
It's too bad they don't hold their value. They take less space than gold bullion and you can't take pictures with gold bullion.
calking: Can't wait to hear what all the x-trans sensor haters have to say if/when the BAYER sensor XA-1 comes out at an even lower price than the XM-1.
Oh wait...never mind.
"no VF ... Waaah!!!""Has plastic parts ... Waaah!!!""Should be cheaper ... Waaah!!!""Made in ... [not Japan] ... Waaah!!!""It's not full frame ... Waaah!!!""no good for shooting sports ... Waaah!!!""It's not a ... [Sony, Oly, Nikon, Canon, Pany, Leica, etc] ... Waaah!!!""no way to convert RAW files (total horsesh*t) ... Waaah!!!""I don't like the colors ... Waaah!!!""Fuji is REALLY going out of business NOW ... Waaah!!!""It's not a FF Sony Nex ... Waaah!!!""I see artifacts at 400x magnification on my electron microscope ... Waaah!!!""It's too big. Too small. Too complex for the blind... Waaah!!!""No in-camera stabilization ... Waaah!!!""Video isn't as good as ..... Waaah!!!""Image quality not as good as full frame Canon 5DM3 / Nikon D800 with prime lenses ... Waaah!!!""just wait for the XMA2s model..."
You forgot the white orbs.
Felix E Klee: To me, the photos in the article on wired.com have a look which I remember seeing in the print edition of National Geographic about twenty years ago. (We stopped subscribing.) What's the secret of this look? Grading? Composition? Are photos with people staged?
They look like film. But I think the secret is that this is un-enhanced color, the way reality actually looks. No tobacco filters, graduated ND, super saturation plug-ins, etc.
rxbot: $800 is too much for a plastic lens made in China with a plastic body made in Taiwan, should be $500-$600.
Plastic from China is the new metal from Japan. We might as well get used to it, at least until the Vietnamese catch up.
I'm not buying any of these phones until the camera has at least 250 megapixels.
StevenE: It's micro 4/3, so you can forget about shallow DOF.If that doesn't bother you, then this format could work.Non starter for me, unless it can fit in my pocket.
Everything is labeled "pro". It doesn't mean anything, except to the guy who bought it.
Karroly: I am afraid IS on an ultra wide lens is just a sales gimmick. This lens is equivalent to a 18-35mm FF zoom. Thus it means one can shoot handheld at about 1/20s at 11mm and about 1/40s at 22mm. With the 3-stop advantage of the IS, it means speed can drop as low as about 1/2s - 1/3s at 11mm and 1/5s at 22mm. What kind of subjects can we shoot at such a low speed apart from paintings on a museum wall, where flashes are forbidden, or a landscape under moonlight without a tripod ? Personally, I found that shooting people indoor at speed below 1/30s, thanks to the OIS, generally produces blurred people in front of a sharp background, so I avoid it. Not to mention that ultra wide angle lenses distort people faces. I am rather looking for fast lenses and cameras with good IQ at high ISO for that purpose...
I use mine for interiors with natural light, night scenes, sunsets, overcast days, etc. Not just where flash is forbidden but where it would result in nasty reflections. It's incredibly handy, as is my Nikon 16-35VR. Neither of these wide lenses is suitable for people's faces but why would anybody try this?
It's hard to accept but I think there are some things a smart phone is not good for. Give me a can of Aeroprint any day.
Given the pure joy people get from wrestling with Microsoft products, my suggestion would be to drop all references to Microsoft. Windows? Don't even ask.
Marty4650: This has to be great for Panasonic.
Sure, a few people with more money than sense will rush out and buy a few of these new LeicaSonic cameras, and they will pay $750 or so for the privilege of getting a red dot on their Panasonic LF1.
However... a whole lot more people will buy a Panasonic LF1 for $399, thinking "this is the same camera as the Leica, for half the price!"
In the entire history of marketing the partnership between Leica and Panasonic has to be one of the most successful ones. Both companies have benefited enormously due to this partnership.
Leica gets to slap a red dot on a Panasonic camera and double the price of it. Instant and easy profits. Panasonic gets the credibility of a "Leica Seal of Approval" which helps them sell a lot of cameras under their own brand name. So everyone wins.
Of course, none of this would work if Panasonic didn't make great cameras.
You just won't see Leica slapping a red dot on a Kodak Easyshare camera.
Your reasoning is partially correct. Sure, Leica will not sell something that isn't reasonably good and I'm sure this camera is fine. But the number Leica will sell is too small to have any influence on Panasonic, which is why the cameras are essentially identical. And since it's the same camera, Panasonic doesn't have to go out of their way, so why not make a bunch for Leica? A sale is a sale.
The problem, I think, is that people misunderstand why Leica does this. Yes, they need to get something cheaper than they could make and mark it up. That's part of their survival.
But there's more to it. Leica lacks the resources to make significant changes that would differentiate the camera enough so people would feel they were getting something extra. And since they won't sell a huge number, they can't get Panasonic interested in making a really unique model. This situation has existed as far back as the R3 vs. the Minolta XE-7.
GabrielZ: Enough with all this low-end stuff, enthusiasts want to see an X-Pro2 and X-E2 come out - its time.
Maybe they just want to end the year selling a lot of cameras.
I'm curious about something. Is the price discrepancy on Adobe products due to taxes (VAT) or does Adobe charge more in Europe/UK/Australia because they think they can get more--and then taxes go on top of that?
Pogo333: The cost of Stubbornness: This change is being billed "Adobe listened to Photographers" This is baloney. We asked for a path to ownership, not a cheaper hook. It also raises more questions than it solves. So what is the status of LR now? We were told that LR would not be part of CC, there would be a version there, but it would always be a stand along product. Now it appears to be a permanent part of CC. What happens if one does not sign up for this option? Second, what is Adobe's commitment to keeping the monthly surcharge at $9.99? They are very vague about this, saying that it is not an introductory price, but what will the future cost? Third, if one reads the other comments at Adobe's FAQ page, it appears that Adobe is selling their products to some groups, so why beat up on this community? Last. Do we trust Adobe?
I agree about the Adobe paranoia. And the $9.99 deal makes this pretty obvious.